Sure, I'll bite...You could see the proliferation of 'facts' as working to
diminish individual agency by subsuming an individual's idiosyncrasies under
the gods of constructed rationality. So, it thereby becomes not such a
subtle way to support conformity as opposed to challenge it. If voters only
voted based on the accepted norm of factual dialogue then that may actually
be a recipe for a totalitarian society to masquerade as a democracy. As
opposed to the so-called unfactual beliefs that may fly in the face of
accepted facts, thereby acting as a critical voice. Then again if you have
too many voices then all voices become the white noise of democratic
society. This is one possible viewpoint, any others?
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> What do people make of this? Does anyone think some of the data in
> here is a bit too obvious already?
> More importantly, are there any reasonable disagreements with the
> connections between the observations and larger claims drawn from
> How could one connect this to critical studies done on governmentality
> and individual agency in power?
> Chetan Vemuri
> West Des Moines, IA
> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
> Foucault-L mailing list